Mr. Gavin Lawlor:

It is a good idea but the problem is resources. We are heaping more and more assessments and reviews of assessments on to the planning system and local authorities. Not unlike the NTA has said, we need to get better bang for our buck. We need to be able to look at what it is we are going to prioritise with the resources we have available and what is going to achieve the best results in reducing carbon emissions. That is not to say we should not do that - we definitely should and we should look at carbon budgets - but it is a huge exercise of engagement and education and of developing models that are universal, can be universally and simply applied and can be simply understood by people. It is one thing to put a carbon budget together, calculate it and come up with a number, but if that does not have a tangible meaning for Joe Public it is not going to resonate with people. Not unlike the Cathaoirleach's idea of being able to tell people it is X amount of carbon if they do this and Y amount if they do that, it does help.

I believe in the butterfly effect, whereby if everybody does a little more we will get a much bigger result at the end. We need to be very careful about the resources, however, because they are finite. We are already under strain in most of the local authorities and we need to look at what is going to get us the best result in reducing carbon emissions. There are other ideas out there, for example, solar PV, which is supported already and developed at domestic level. Maybe we should be supporting people who are in more disadvantaged homes and in energy poverty. Put the shagging things in for free and have a more even-handed approach towards energy poverty. That is something we could do that would have an immediate effect on carbon emissions, especially because most of those families are burning coal, wood, oil, etc., as those are the cheapest forms of heating their home or producing energy.